BOUNTY INTERNATIONAL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD KLEIN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court dismissed an appeal from a non-final order vacating a prior transfer order because the trial court did not definitively fix the locus of the action, making the order non-appealable under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(A).
An order vacating a prior transfer order is not appealable under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(A) when the trial court leaves the venue question open and does not require the appellant to litigate on the merits.
[1] An order is appealable as concerning venue under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(A) only if it fixes the locus of the action; an order that leaves the ven…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“an order denying a motion to dismiss for failure to pay the transfer fee was not appeal-able as one concerning venue because it did not "fix[ ] the locus of the action"”
Court distinguished cases where venue is not fixed from those where it is, citing Rosie O'Grady's Inc. v. Del Portillo
Bounty International sought review of a trial court order that granted a motion for reconsideration and vacated a prior order granting a motion to tra…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Transfer Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
WEBSTER, J.
Appellant seeks review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(A) of a non-final order granting a motion for reconsideration and vacating a prior order granting a motion to transfer because of improper venue. Appellee responds that, because it is apparent from the trial court’s remarks that the question of where venue lies remains open and appellant has not been required to litigate on the merits, the trial court’s order did not “fix the locus of the action” and, therefore, the appeal must be dismissed because the order is not one that “concern[s] venue,” as that term is used in rule 9.130(a)(3)(A). We agree with appellee. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as one from a non-appealable non-final order. Compare Rosie O’Grady's Inc. v. Del Portillo, 521 So. 2d 183, 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (an order denying a motion to dismiss for failure to pay the transfer fee was not appeal-able as one concerning venue because it did not “fix[ ] the locus of the action”), with Dep’t of Mgmt. Servs. v. Fastrac Constr., Inc., 701 So. 2d 1200, 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (an order which, while purporting to defer a ruling on a motion to transfer venue, required the appellant to litigate the action on the merits, “ ‘fixe[d] the locus’ of the action, and thus ‘concerned] venue’ ” as contemplated by rule 9.130(a)(3)(A)).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
WOLF and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. ABC Distrib., Inc., 701 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Rosie O'Grady's, Inc. v. Concepcion del Portillo, 521 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)